[Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review

[Dr. Sarmad Hussain]

With regard to ‘B. What promotes consumer trust?’, I would like to discuss
further the phrase ‘WHOIS data is provided accurately and with consent’. I
initially read this as a simple recognition of the need to consider privacy
issues. However, I now wonder whether this can be read as an unambiguous
statement of a specific requirement (i.e. the need for consent). If so, I do
not think we have reached a settled position on this issue yet. I’m not
advocating a view either way on this, and I think the discussion forward
will need to be detailed and nuanced, but I am concerned that the existing
text could be seen to close off these discussions. I have a similar comment
on question 5 in the survey, which refers to ‘legitimate options available
to hide the WHOIS data’. Again, I do not think the existing situation is so
clear cut, and I personally have not got a settled position on this.

 

Sarmad è

Trust is a perceptual measure.  Understanding of privacy and legitimacy may
vary from one person to another, depending on the culture they are coming
from.  Thus, these questions can still gauge perceptions even with agreeing
with definitions which are not clearly settled.  However, this is not to say
that we should work harder to define many of these terms as clearly as we
can.

 

With regard to the survey as a whole, I have some comments on the wording of
specific questions (particularly relating to clarity), but I wanted to raise
a broader issue. In particular, I note that the current proposed survey is
essentially closed and qualitative, and I wonder what exactly we are aiming
to achieve from it? 

 

Sarmad è

We are perhaps wanting to break down different aspects of “Consumer Trust”
to better measure how the relevant stakeholders perceive the contribution of
the service in the context.  The break down will also help identify which
specific areas of the cumulative “Consumer Trust” need to be addressed.
This is in the context of the our specific mandate: “review of WHOIS policy
and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy 
 promotes
consumer trust”

 

Regards,
Sarmad

 

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Alice Jansen
Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2011 8:09 PM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review

 

Dear Review Team Members,

 

Please find attached a public comment draft announcement for your review and
consideration in anticipation of your conference call scheduled for
tomorrow.

 

Kindly note that this was drafted and approved by Kathy and Emily.

 

Many thanks in advance,

 

Very best regards

 

Alice


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only
and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review,
re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any
action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than
the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties.

If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor
of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38
Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies
of this transmission together with any attachments.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3475 - Release Date: 03/01/11
12:34:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110302/53ac1cbb/attachment.html